Digital BW, The Print

I know this forum is dedicated to B&W printing techniques, and as I grow
more comfortable with my results and equipment, I am curious how others
feel about the capture side of the process. I shoot with a Hasselblad
6cm x 6cm, and scan the negs. I print using photoshop and QTR and have
dedicated 1400 printers for color and b/w work. I use MIS inksets.
I am curious if anyone is using a digital back for capture at this
point. (I also use a Canon 5d for digital) I'm not sure if its worth it
to go to the higher priced medium format digital back. My test prints
seem to be very close at 13 x 19. Film processing is starting to get
hard to locate in my area....
Any thoughts are appreciated
Scott


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rent a Hassy digital and take one look at the files and you will put down the Canon. Of course it will set you back about $35,000 :)

I have printed some, absolutely amazing.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jan 26, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Scott wrote:

> I know this forum is dedicated to B&W printing techniques, and as I grow
> more comfortable with my results and equipment, I am curious how others
> feel about the capture side of the process. I shoot with a Hasselblad
> 6cm x 6cm, and scan the negs. I print using photoshop and QTR and have
> dedicated 1400 printers for color and b/w work. I use MIS inksets.
> I am curious if anyone is using a digital back for capture at this
> point. (I also use a Canon 5d for digital) I'm not sure if its worth it
> to go to the higher priced medium format digital back. My test prints
> seem to be very close at 13 x 19. Film processing is starting to get
> hard to locate in my area....
> Any thoughts are appreciated
> Scott
>

"Scott" <shutterbug1004@...> wrote:
>
> ...I am curious how others
> feel about the capture side of the process. 
> I shoot with a Hasselblad 6cm x 6cm, and scan the negs. 
> I print using photoshop and QTR and have
> dedicated 1400 printers for color and b/w work. I use MIS inksets.
> I am curious if anyone is using a digital back for capture at this
> point. (I also use a Canon 5d for digital) 
> I'm not sure if its worth it
> to go to the higher priced medium format digital back.
> My test prints seem to be very close at 13 x 19. ...

I used to shoot Rollei SL66, TLR, Bronica RF645 with Tech Pan, and some other MF cameras.  I now shoot digital.

I have a Canon 5D2, which convinced me that, for my uses, it was time to transition.  Now, for when I want to travel light, hike, and for most things, I use a Leica M9.  I think the system is optics limited. 

See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/2010_mini_medium_format_shoot_out.shtml

In an article called, "2010 Mini Medium Format Shoot-out" a couple MF digital cameras were compared, and just for the fun of it they compared those results to a Leica M9.  One quote of interest:

"While the size of the Leica file is smaller than those of the medium format cameras, and therefore display smaller at 100% magnification on screen, we observe that the Leica files have the best sharpness and resolution of all compared here."

At some point as prints get larger the higher pixel count of the MF digital cameras will make them move ahead.  At the sizes I print -- up to 22 x 28", printed with a 7800 -- the M9 files are fine.

Just try to find an M9 or any top notch Leica lens in stock anywhere.  Most are way back ordered.  From what I've seen there are some good reasons.  I'm sure there are lots of circumstances when the MF DSLRs are far better, but for the landscape and most other things I do, the M9 is an outstanding capture tool.  But, the optics must be really good to take full advantage of that sensor.  I also use my 5d2 for somethings, but the M9 has the edge on image quality if the ISO can be low.  CMOS is far less noisy at very high ISO.  

The 35mm f/2.8 Zeiss (made by Cosina) is my favorite lens, and the only "Zeiss" I've used that can match Leica's top performers. 

This is just my opinion based on my limited experiences, which do not include buying and using an MF DSLR.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I have a Phase One H2O on my Hasselblad V series camera, and the results are great.  Even though it is an older back, and needs to be tethered to a computer, the end result is better then the that of my Nikon D3x.  The Zeiss lenses being the factor, as well as the Phase One's great sensor.

My problem is the back can not be taken into the field.  I have been giving this problem two avenues for possible solution.  I have been looking into the "P" series Phase One backs.  I am only sorry I didn't do this before buying a new Nikon D3x.  A good used 30mp Phase One back is about the same price, or less.  The "P" series do not need to be connected to a computer, and are free to take out into the field.

The problem with the Nikon D3x is the lenses.  Even though the same lenses seem to work OK on the D3, they are weak on the D3x.  The only Nikon lenses I have that works well are an old 105 from 1975, and a 105 Macro from the mid eighties.  To get an image that is half way decent, most need to be stopped down past f/8, then fall off after f/16.

I have contacted Zeiss here in the USA about some ZF.2 loaner lenses to test of the on the D3x.  After I test them, I will make up my mind whether to invest in new lenses, or a used Phase One back for the Hasselblad.

I like the D3x body greatly.  But what is a good body without good lenses?  I bought a new Nikon f/4, 24-120 last month, and after testing, returned it the next day.  That lens may work well with a half sized sensor, but not a full frame.

It has been my experience that large sensors are like large sheets of film.  The bigger the better.

I am using a P45+ on a 645DF.
tested the P45+ for Hasselblad V

Even with best focus adjustment I get better (sharper) results

with the LS 80 mm or 55 mm lenses designed for the digital backs.

I just start trying outh the lens adapter for hasselblad lenses fitted

to the phase one 645 DF

but keep in mind, for people photography autofocus is a must

jj



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ben,

You are 100% correct the advantage that MF has over DSLR is the lenses.
If you want to see what your D3x can really do you need to get some of these
Hartblei lenses.
Basically a MF Contax Zeiss (I believe) lens glass rebuild into a 35 Nikon
mount +T/S.
http://www.hartblei.de/en/srz-set.htm

The result is beautiful images with the MF tonality.

So you get the best of both worlds, MF quality with DSLR functionality and
portability.
Maybe you get that with the Pentax digital as well now. But again I don't
think the lenses are available yet.

Mike
<http://www.hartblei.de/en/srz-set.htm>

On 27 January 2011 15:57, ben <benjschneider2@...> wrote:

>
>
> I have a Phase One H2O on my Hasselblad V series camera, and the results
> are great. Even though it is an older back, and needs to be tethered to a
> computer, the end result is better then the that of my Nikon D3x. The Zeiss
> lenses being the factor, as well as the Phase One's great sensor.
>
> My problem is the back can not be taken into the field. I have been giving
> this problem two avenues for possible solution. I have been looking into the
> "P" series Phase One backs. I am only sorry I didn't do this before buying a
> new Nikon D3x. A good used 30mp Phase One back is about the same price, or
> less. The "P" series do not need to be connected to a computer, and are free
> to take out into the field.
>
> The problem with the Nikon D3x is the lenses. Even though the same lenses
> seem to work OK on the D3, they are weak on the D3x. The only Nikon lenses I
> have that works well are an old 105 from 1975, and a 105 Macro from the mid
> eighties. To get an image that is half way decent, most need to be stopped
> down past f/8, then fall off after f/16.
>
> I have contacted Zeiss here in the USA about some ZF.2 loaner lenses to
> test of the on the D3x. After I test them, I will make up my mind whether to
> invest in new lenses, or a used Phase One back for the Hasselblad.
>
> I like the D3x body greatly. But what is a good body without good lenses? I
> bought a new Nikon f/4, 24-120 last month, and after testing, returned it
> the next day. That lens may work well with a half sized sensor, but not a
> full frame.
>
> It has been my experience that large sensors are like large sheets of film.
> The bigger the better.
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
>
> ... the advantage that MF has over DSLR is the lenses...

I think most of the 35mm manufacturers have put the bulk of their optical development money into making zooms with the widest range and a variety of other goals, with ultimate optical quality way down the list.  With today's best sensors, the optical quality bar was set too low for those of us who want to wring all the quality out of these cameras that the sensors now can achieve. But, I assume the manufacturers know what their main market wants.

I talked to a Canon rep about whether one of their "L" lenses that I'd had (and sold) in the past had been improved.  His response was that the trick is not to make the very best optic, but to make good ones that are affordable.  Along these lines, they apparently pour money into being able to assemble the modern many-element lenses with a minimum of slop.  They also design the optics to tolerate assembly QC limits.

I recently gave up getting a well-assembled "Zeiss" (read Cosina) 50mm f/2 for my M9.  After sending back 2, I decided to keep the third.  At least it gave a good image at f/8 (and nice selective focus image at f/2).  The published MTF curve for the lens at f/4 was way optimistic.  You can forget the published MTF curves if the assembly is sloppy.  I always start my search with the MTF curve.  Those at least show what the optical design is capable of (at infinity -- forget retrofocus for up close without floating elements).  But I have never tested a high speed 50mm from any manufacturer that did not show visible signs of decentering (one side of the frame visibly softer than the other).  Some say better assembly is part of what you pay for with the Leica lenses.  Perhaps that's also part of why MF optics are so much more expensive.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks for all the great feedback! One additional question. There is an adapter ring that allows you to use hassie lenses on the canon 5d2. I have quite a few of the old zeis lenses, though I would loose autofocus and metering, would that provide MF quality optics on a digital 35mm? Thanks again for all th input

Scott

Hi Scott:

Here is a good discussion on flickr.com that might help:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/eos-manual-lenses/discuss/72157606094591912/

I sold all my Hasselblad glass so I never got a chance to test it. It would be interesting to see how difficult it is to focus. Seems like you may be able to get focus confirmation to work with some of them, which would be great.

All the best,

Andrew

Andrew Darlow
Editor, The Imaging Buffet
http://www.imagingbuffet.com
Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http://www.inkjettips.com
and
Pet Photography 101: 
Tips for Taking Better Photos of Your Dog or Cat - http://www.PhotoPetTips.com
http://facebook.com/andrewdarlow



On Jan 29, 2011, at 3:17 AM, Scott wrote:

> 
> 
> Thanks for all the great feedback! One additional question. There is an adapter ring that allows you to use hassie lenses on the canon 5d2. I have quite a few of the old zeis lenses, though I would loose autofocus and metering, would that provide MF quality optics on a digital 35mm? Thanks again for all th input
> 
> Scott
> 
> 






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]